Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader tipped us to news that the Software Freedom Conservancy is expanding its GPL compliance efforts. Quoting Bradley Kuhn: "This new program is an outgrowth of the debate that happened over the last few months regarding Conservancy's GPL compliance efforts. Specifically, I noticed that, buried in the FUD over the last four months regarding GPL compliance, there was one key criticism that was valid and couldn't be ignored: Linux copyright holders should be involved in compliance actions on embedded systems. Linux is a central component of such work, and the BusyBox developers agreed wholeheartedly that having some Linux developers involved with compliance would be very helpful. Conservancy has addressed this issue by building a broad coalition of copyright holders in many different projects who seek to work on compliance with Conservancy, including not just Linux and BusyBox, but other projects as well."
The anonymous reader adds: "This news was also discussed in the latest episode of the Free as in Freedom Oggcast." Update: 05/30 14:20 GMT by U L: It may not be entirely clear, but several Linux developers have assigned copyright so that the Conservancy can pursue violations for them.

Linux copyright holders should be involved in compliance actions on embedded systems.

I believe they MUST be involved. As a 3rd party SFLC really has no say ( IIRC the legal term is "standing".). IANAL but If someone strips the GPL from some code and puts that code in their product, the copyright holders are the only one who can legitimately make a complaint. The users may notice, but their rights to source code are defined in the GPL - which is absent in such a case.

You could have just googled; that's what I do when I run across an unfamiliar acronym. And did you notice the ironic play on words, I Anal? Needing to point out that one is not a lawyer seems pretty anal to me.

"It is thanks to the SFLC that companies are afraid to use GPL code in their products... they think, quite reasonably, that it just isn't worth the hassle. Which is better, buy a licence for non-free software (fixed, one off cost) or use free software and pay for lawyers to be sure you are in compliance?"

Its better to use free software and pay for lawyers, because;
- You get the source code.
- You _should_ have a lawyer review non-free software licences also, so its not an extra cost.

If corporations are afraid to use GPL software because they are terrified they might have to _share_ something then there are little or no benefits to the Free software community from them being involved.

Paying for a proprietary software license is no guarantee that you are in compliance. Even buying the software puts you at risk of a BSA raid. All it takes is for one employee to install the software on a machine not covered by the license, and you're at risk of serious fines.

Paying for a proprietary software license is no guarantee that you are in compliance. Even buying the software puts you at risk of a BSA raid. All it takes is for one employee to install the software on a machine not covered by the license, and you're at risk of serious fines.

Actually, all it takes is to not have the receipts or have purchased the software from ebay or Amazon. From what I understand , BSA does not consider software purchased from places like Amazon or Ebay as legit.

The creator of Busybox just got sick of helping the SFLC line its pockets by discouraging the use of free software. I think in the end he disowned Busybox and started a new project to do the same thing, under the BSD licence.

Just in case anyone is paying attention to the AC here... The creator of Busybox was Bruce Perens who went on to be the 2nd head of Debian where he authored the Free Software Guidelines. He worked with HP on their move into the Linux community and founded several more Linux projects. He currently works with the government of Norway in a Linux related role.

No, it wasnt to make violations of the kernels license harder to detect, it was to stop the BusyBox copyright holders from having sway over third party applications through their "compliance" requirements (basically they only allowed you to be relicensed for BusyBox if you also came into compliance with everything else, not just BusyBox). Tim Bird had a legitimate complaint - most kernel developers, Linus included, is fairly ambivalent to most kernel license violations.

But nonetheless it is hypocritical for someone at Sony, a company whose executives start frothing at the mouth when they get wind of someone violating their copyrights, to lead an effort to make it easier for others to violate GPL licenses and get away with it. It's good for them but not for you.

Please. Sony is part and parcel of all the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits against people violating their copyright. Yet one of their public representatives is concerned about someone enforcing the terms of the GPL and seeks a way to "protect" people from them.

They wanted an alternative not because it was superior but because it would allow for a legal dodge to avoid licensing compliance.

An employee is not necessarily a public representative. An alternative to Busybox with less restrictive license would be a good thing I feel, but that does not make me a representative espousing my company's viewpoints. Rewriting Busybox is a very simple process, it takes a little time is all.

As far as the original issue, if the Linux devs aren't getting upset about license issues then it seems inappropriate for a third party group to try and step in on their behalf.

Please. Sony is part and parcel of all the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits against people violating their copyright. Yet one of their public representatives is concerned about someone enforcing the terms of the GPL and seeks a way to "protect" people from them.

While I think Tim will probably continue to give his personal support the ToyBox project (note: Sony has *not* given its support to ToyBox -- that was reported incorrectly), it was clear that much of Tim's worries about Conservancy's enforcement efforts were based on rumors spread by a few people and those rumors weren't accurate.http://lwn.net/Articles/483016/ [lwn.net]

They wanted an alternative not because it was superior but because it would allow for a legal dodge to avoid licensing compliance.

Do you object to bionic as well? In any case here's the reasoning [elinux.org] behind the project, no real problem with that.

"We want what's good for us. Period. That means we keep our copyright and yours too."

Very straightforward. You have to commend them for being so forthright and unsubtle about their evil. No "Don't be evil" propaganda. No glossy friendly shiny fruit-themed attractive traps. With them, it's pretty clear that they're the bully, and they want your lunch money.

> > I think in the end he disowned Busybox and started a new project to do the same thing, under the BSD licence.>> No, that was Tim Bird of Sony, who wanted to create "toybox" as a means of replacing Busybox so that GPL> violations of the kernel harder to detect.

No, toybox is by me, Rob Landley, ex-maintainer of busybox, and the guy who hooked busybox up with the SFLC to start legal enforcement of the GPL in the first place. Tim has nothing to do with it (other than writing the first pass of

I think he's talking about Rob Landley who had worked on Busybox before creating Toybox, which was apparently a replacement for Android's Apache-licensed busybox clone, rather than for busybox itself until recently.

I recall reading that he was upset because all of the lawsuits over busybox didn't add anything to busybox itself... few people using busybox had needed to modify it, so getting the source code released didn't really benefit anyone beyond enforcing GPL compliance.

As if enforcing GPL compliance (you know, respect for the license terms applied to a software product) was a bad thing. Oh right, it's the GPL. That makes violating it a worthy cause to be supported and championed.

More FUD! I really do not see what Linus's problem is with the GPL3. What it does is add formal protection for 2 sneaky ways to violate the spirit of the GPL that GPL2 lacks. It is also *more* permissive, allowing more ways to comply with the requirements.

The first is "Tivoization". Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software from being run. Makes no difference whether these checks are done in the software or hardware. Such a check really is software no matter that it's been

More FUD! I really do not see what Linus's problem is with the GPL3. What it does is...

... require eighty bazillion historical authors (Linus didn't write every line of code) unfortunately including, I believe, the estate of some dead people and the current IP owners of some dead companies, to relicense their past work as GPL3 or have someone do a psuedo-cleanroom reimplementation of the GPL2 code.

Yes, the GPL3 is better than the GPL2, a little. But linux wasn't written by one dude last week.

Linus could, if he so desired, declare he will no longer accept GPL2 patches or code, and in probably just 10 or 20 years there would be no remaining GPL2 code in the kernel, probably. Aside from whatever personal views Linus has about the GPL3, re licensing linux just isn't going to happen, at least not any time soon.

Linus could, if he so desired, declare he will no longer accept GPL2 patches or code, and in probably just 10 or 20 years there would be no remaining GPL2 code in the kernel, probably. Aside from whatever personal views Linus has about the GPL3, re licensing linux just isn't going to happen, at least not any time soon.

You do know it's against the GPL to combine GPLv2-only with GPLv3-only code, right? Even the FSF says so [gnu.org]. You can combine GPLv2+ with GPLv3 no issues, but using v3 code will violate the licens

Heck, even an edict came down along the lines of "No GPLv3 software will be approved - don't even try".

That's great for me to hear. You don't sound like the kind of company that has much of value to contribute. We just got permission to contribute back code to the external GPLv3 project we use. This is going to be another story like 10 years ago. Back then lots of companies were banning GPL, or even all open source software. The ones that could use (for example Apple, Google, IBM and Facebook) it had an edge which was crucial in many of them pulling ahead.

He probably wants Tivo and other vendors to use the Linux kernel over a BSD kernel. If you GPLv3 downgrade the Linux kernel, it will make it unsuitable for use in commercial products like the Tivo. Do you really think that companies will magically overnight want to comply with the GPLv3 terms?

If the Linux kernel gets downgraded, we will see one of several things:

1. Adoption of another OS kernel under a more permissive license.2. A fork of the Linux kernel3. Vendors using old versions of the kernel as long

For something like a set top box, the manufacturer is fully justified in locking it so that customers cannot accidentally or deliberately alter the contents, and thereby affect the T&C of the EULA. To answer most of the questions above, had Linux been GPL3, TiVo and any other vendors making similar boxes would have had to look at using something else - maybe QNX, Minix, NetBSD or whatever other embedded OS there might be out there.

For something like a set top box, the manufacturer is fully justified in locking it so that customers cannot.....

How the hell have we got to this distopian nightmare. These are the people who bought something from you. They own the set top box. They are in the privacy of their own homes. What they do with their own stuff in their own homes is none of your bloody business and you are certainly not "fully justified" in setting up systems to interfere with it. People are fully justified in taking serious action against people who do that kind of stuff.

As zzatz pointed out below, content owners want control over delivery, and are okay with a recording being watched, but not distributed to other media. Locking down the system is a part of how it is achieved. If TiVo didn't control that part, they can say goodbye to the chances of any content being delivered to those boxes via the receiver, amd the whole purpose of making those boxes in the first place is defeated. Unlike the FSF, TiVo is in a business, not a cult.

Make whatever Godwin comments you like, but are you seriously suggesting that an FSF license is the legal equivalent of Government regulations? Those exist to put a floor on what is or isn't allowed in business, but here, there is no screwing the customer involved. The customer is told upfront that this box allows them to record and view something on their TV as many times as they like, but they can't move it to, say their computers to upload on YouTube. A lot of it is at the behest of content providers,

Why? No one has ever explained to me just why a company wants to Tivoize Linux?How does keeping me from changing the code on a device I've purchased help the manufacturer's bottom line?

You need to look at entire ecosystem, not just the box maker. People don't buy hardware because they admire the hardware, they buy hardware to accomplish a task. For Tivo and others, that task is delivering content. The content providers require control over delivery; they want you to be able to watch a recording but not transfer the recording. That requires locked-down systems. Which sells more? Open systems that cannot record HBO, or locked systems that can?

I assume you have the same kind of thoughts about cars, airplanes and microwave ovens.

Care to go into detail, or are you trying to draw stupid parallels and hoping no one notices?

No, it was a serious question. Sorry if it didn't come out that way.

What I meant was. We have all kinds of devices around us that uses micro computers. Sometimes there are reasons why the companies making those kind of things don't want people to mess them up by changing the code running on them. In the case of Hollywood the reason (at least for now) is DRM, like it or not. Other kinds of businesses may have other reasons. If the Tivo's of this world should make it possible to alter the programs running on

I agree that the correct answer is "Fuck Hollywood". I don't have a Tivo, I built a MythTV box that records free over-the-air broadcasts. I haven't been to a movie or had cable for years. Hollywood doesn't get my money.

So my question for you is, why do you shoot the messenger? You asked a question, I answered it, and you call me an apologist. Fuck you. I told you that I think DRM is a mistake. Don't you understand the difference between an explanation and a justification? I find that I can make better argum

No one has ever explained to me just why a company wants to Tivoize Linux?

The explanation B2B free software vendors gave to the FSF was apparently good enough that the FSF restricted the anti-tivoization provisions of the GPLv3, in its final form, to what amounts to consumer products.

B2C vendors weren't as concerned, as long as the license explicitly allowed two things (that it does): termination of any support responsibility and disconnection of modified-software devices from networks when the network owne

Linus is primarily a developer, he wants to see the improvements Tivo has done, study them and if they're good enough roll them back into his own project. The GPLv2 fulfills his requirements and then he primarily wants it used - if it's used in locked down tivos, cell phones, tablets, set top boxes, embedded boxes or other appliances that's not a big concern for him, but if all those backed out plus a wave of fud it'd hurt his project. The FSFs agenda of user-modifiable software is not his agenda, he just w

I don't know about Linus, but my problems include (but are not limited to) the fact that it restricts available software functionality and imposes restrictions on the use (without distribution) of software, contrary to the whole point of free software, and that it creates difference classes of users, with different rules that apply when targetting them.

The first is "Tivoization". Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software fro

I've never read about the FSF making any distinctions b/w business and consumer users. All they care about is the liberation of software. Do you have any links on either fsf.org or gnu.org where such a distinction is spelt out?

I've never read about the FSF making any distinctions b/w business and consumer users

See the GPLv3, Sec. 6. Note, there, that the "anti-tivoization" provisions only apply to what the GPLv3 calls "User Products", which are, essentially, what would in normal parlance be consumer products as opposed to business products.

All they care about is the liberation of software.

That's what the advertisements say, but that's not what the license says. Which is the problem with the license.

Tivo goes and uses Linux, and sticks the GPL in the back of their end user manual. Linux and GPL are now noticed by basic everyday consumers. Many developers and technical oriented people see this and think "wow, it's great that free software is getting wide exposure, hurrah for Tivo. But many political activist oriented people are thinking "oh no, commercial use is bad, it's not homebrew hardware, must create a new license to prevent this or else we'll be seen as sell outs." The conflict between GPL as

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

In other words, GPL3 ain't as pure as it proclaims either. If it can waive the condition where it is useless - such as use in a ROM - why can't they include a locked down flash device in it? After all, functionally, a ROM, a PROM, an EPROM, an MTP and a lockable flash (like ones coming out of Spansion and Micron) are the same. A PROM allows programming in assembly, an EPROM allows it to be erased, an MTP does the same as an EPROM except that it is el

The first is "Tivoization". Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software from being run. Makes no difference whether these checks are done in the software or hardware. Such a check really is software no matter that it's been hardwired in. With a scheme like that in place, you can't fix so much as a typo let alone a simple bug. Linus is apparently okay with Tivoization.

I believe hardware falls outside the purview of the GPL. All I'm concerned with is that the source code remains availa

The first is "Tivoization". Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software from being run. Makes no difference whether these checks are done in the software or hardware. Such a check really is software no matter that it's been hardwired in. With a scheme like that in place, you can't fix so much as a typo let alone a simple bug. Linus is apparently okay with Tivoization.

Of course, Linus cares about the Linux kernel code, not imposing any kinds of restrictions on the other software that you run or imposing any kind of restrictions on the hardware that you run the software on, just the Linux kernel code. He outlines it pretty clearly here [informationweek.com], a choice quote: "-- I'm against "you cannot do xyz with the code.""

Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software from being run.

Actually you should not buy vendor-locked hardware. Obviously alternatives exist and in the case of TiVo you even have the FOSS software modifications they made so you can

The question is whether most Linux developers really care that much. Linux is big and strong enough, that a modified version in a specific product is unlikely to have anything important Linux really needs. Most likely it will be modifications to work with some highly specific hardware.

The purchasers of the hardware might be interested in the source code if they want to hack it, but aside from that, it probably doesn't make a lot of difference to developers, who just want to hack code.

Linux is big and strong enough, that a modified version in a specific product is unlikely to have anything important Linux really needs.

Of course it could. Lots if not most things inside the Linux kernel itself come from a small group or even an individual. With other software products that are part of the Linux eco system this is even more common. For example twenty years ago I was using Scientific Word for Windows which allowed me to do calculations (like Maple) and TeX. That's far more advanced

If it's so sane and pragmatic then why doesn't the Business Software Alliance take that view? I mean, why bother enforcing MS', Adobe's, et al copyrights? Those companies are making billions? What happened to the sanity and pragmatism there? Or does that only apply when you want something for nothing from the little guys?

IMO this is a good thing, especially if it means greater pressure on the likes of HTC and other Android vendors to be more proactive and release the kernel source for their devices when the devices and binaries are released instead of taking months and repeated prodding by the copyright holder to get code out there.

Copyright is good if it means I get source code or something else I want for free.

Copyright is bad if it means I can't get music that I want for free but instead have to pay for it.

The simple-minded "Average Joe" speaks up. *sigh*

Slashdotters have a problem with the ENFORCEMENT of copyright by Big Content; We don't have a problem with copyright in general. They use the legal system as a weapon against the citizens it is supposed to protect. They routinely assert rights over their content that they don't have (or are covered by fair use), and they make broad, unsubstantiated claims that are designed to cloud the judgement of the public and foolish lawmakers. One of those claims is u

Does anyone know if there's a licence out there which forbids using any part of the code in proprietary software, but which does not force derivative code to release its source?

The question doesn't make sense. Proprietary software is the opposite of Free Software (or Open Source, depending on your leanings). It is software where the person who receives the binary also receives the code, along with modification and redistribution rights. You can not require derived works not to be proprietary without also requiring their code to be released - it's like requiring them to include air, but not requiring them to include oxygen.

A license that does not allow commercial use would not meet the definition of free or open source software (Freedom 0: the freedom to use the software for any purpose), so his restriction would effectively make it impossible for anyone to incorporate his code into a larger project, open or proprietary.

1) A person could distribute a GPLed application themselves, redistribution would then be questionable but not neccesarily illegal. (This was precisely the situation with KDE when QT was under that license)

2) A person could distribute a BSD/MIT licensed code which depended on that library. They would just want to make sure the recipient understood that he's getting a conjoined work under 2 different licenses.

3) A person could distribute a closed source application using the QT style li

You don't want a license which forces special conditions but not one that forces special conditions? You need to ponder this a bit more, particularly since even the BSD won't cut it, it forces special conditions like requiring code added to files to be under the same license when the source is distributed and attribution.

You are confused about copyleft, the whole point there is to foster code sharing (turning the normal use of copyright in proprietary software on its head). What you want (as far as I can figure) is a license that only lets freeware use your code, the only one that comes close I'm aware of would be a CC-BY-NC. If that doesn't work you'd likely have to write your own as most people don't consider it a useful tool. You will not manage to avoid both public domain and copyright restricted, it's either free of re

Ok, so how should we refer to the economic system of countries under 'traditional' communist governments? What makes such system (un)successful? Can you really compare the social response of people to the failure of one economical system based on political context? If you can tell apples are sweeter than lemons based on their color, tell me why comparing two types of licences that promote freedom with one of them requiring equality of freedom as analogy to the communist ideology in economic systems versus c